Great read on Kobe and the state of the lakers..

I know this a Celtics board, but just like the idea that the concept of "good" is meaningless without knowledge of "evil", the Celtics wouldn't be the Celtics if not for the Lakers. I just read a really interesting piece from Henry Abbott about how Kobe has basically screwed the Lakers. Not entirely a new concept, but Abbott seems to have gotten many interesting quotes from Lakers and league insiders. It especially interesting since Kobe had somehow seemed to reinvent himself in the press as a crabby, but almost likable, old guy who isn't afraid to speak the truth (an image, by the way, that is not incompatible with the article...). Curious to other's thoughts. Enjoy...

http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/11717596/is-kobe-bryant-reason-los-angeles-lakers-downfall

Danny Ainge had the guts to trade away two of the most loved players on the Celtics last year. He stood tall after making a statement years ago that he would have broken up Bird, McHale, Parish and start building, it would have been the uproar of the century. Red never did it with his teams.

Now LA is stuck with a contract that just blows my mind. Paul Pierce had no intention to play on another rebuilding team so it made it a lot easier to trade him, and he took an aging KG along with him. Sad as it was to see them go, there are young guys on this team now that are part of the future.

Kobe will make his money, go off in the sunset and the Lakers will have a long, long rebuild ahead. Maybe once he is gone they will attract those free agents they will finally be able to pay.

As far as Hollinger is concerned, he has been kissing LA's butt for years. His claim is ridiculous.

Rosalie

I thought that LA's top brass, not Kobe, did the most damage. Hiring D'Antoni, for starters.


KJ

We had a very interesting thread last winter on this very subject. They dont call him Ko-ME for nothing.

I'm skeptical of the the article's presentation. It puts everything in as damaging a light as possible as far as Kobe is concerned and downplays every other factor. I think the Lakers' current predicament is due to a collection of factors, one of which is Kobe's prickly nature, but that's only one.

Jimmy Buss has been more to blame than Kobe. They had a chance to get a solid coach in Rick Adelman, who was Kupchack's choice, but Buss went with Mike Brown. After that went poorly for one season, Brown got the backing from management to implement the Princeton offense, but when that didn't go well, they fired Brown five games into the season. Phil Jackson was ready to step in, but Jim Buss couldn't abide that, so he brought in D'Antoni instead. D'Antoni was yet another disaster. Management and coaching disarray is more of an issue than Kobe.

They had a deal for Chris Paul, but the league killed it. To say that would have worked better than getting Dwight and Steve Nash is putting it mildly. Chris Paul would've been strong enough to stand up to Kobe, and Kobe would have deferred ballhandling duties to him without an issue.

Getting Dwight and Nash was considered an unbelievable coup at the time, but Nash got hurt and has been missing in action since, and Dwight's passive/aggressive and needy personality was a horrible fit with Kobe. The writer can blame that on Kobe, but I put a lot of that on Dwight. I don't find Kobe showing up to the pitch meeting in casual clothes to be an issue. Kobe pushes his teammates to step up and become winners, and I don't see him saying that in the meeting with Dwight as a bad thing. I want that in a team leader. At that point, Dwight already knew he didn't want to be with Kobe, so it's not like Kobe's clothes or what he said in the meeting was going to make any difference.

I find it difficult to believe that the main reason LeBron and Carmelo didn't seriously consider the Lakers is all due to Kobe. They had their own reasons for doing what they did. The Lakers don't always get every free agent they want. They had Chris Paul but then the league yanked the rug out from under them. They had Dwight and Steve Nash, but then that went down in flames. After that, they were in a pretty tough spot, and to blame that on Kobe is disingenuous.

Kobe won't get a lot of love in Celtic land, but that doesn't mean that every hatchet job article about him should be accepted at face value.

I found this response to the ESPN article, which I think presents a reasonable counterpoint.

http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2014/10/20/7024989/la-lakers-kobe-bryant-espn-downfall

The article didn't mention KG's not wanting to go there in the summer of '07. I believe the reason had something to do with all the drama that was going on there for the past few years. Kobe had a lot to do with that drama.

That, along with recent poor management, contributed to where they are now. Signing old players didn't help either. We know that from our experience. It does sound good on paper, but over the long NBA season, players on their last legs don't cut it.

gyso

I remember reading that Kobe would not settle for a contract that would help the team move on once he is gone. I think I read that Jeannie Buss had alot to do with his contract. I am not suggesting that he give his talents away for free, but, as an aging, ailing star, the money they are going to pay him is crazy.
Blame them all, management on down. No guts to stand up to him, selfishness on his part.

Oh well, I guess it is just more enjoyable to watch the Celtics build little by little than to dwell on the Lakers problems.

Rosalie

Outside,

I actually agree with much of what you said, especially regarding Howard. If Kobe's attire is the reason he spurned LA, then that is a pretty immature decision. Also, the whole bit where he was questioning Nash (and Kobe) about how no one stuck up for him. He strikes me as immature. The author says LA would have been ideal for Dwight's personality. Just not true- Dwight might like to think of himself as the type of player who would thrive in LA, but he is not. He wants the attention of a place like LA, but clearly cannot handle the scrutiny that comes with the attention. Going to Houston, where fans are happy to have a star, was definitely the better move for Dwight. Good points also about the Chris Paul trade and about how getting Nash and Howard demonstrates the clout of the team even though it didn't work out. Not that I like Kobe, but the writer seemed to have an agenda. That being said, I'm pretty sure a lot of what he said is true regarding Bryant's personality and how he is perceived by his peers.

My good friend, Will, is a die-hard Lakers fan (other than that he's completely rational).  When Kobe signed this contract I said to him "this 2 year contract just killed your team for the next 5 years" because it sucks up all the cap, making it difficult to surround him with quality players and, at his age, he can't do it all himself anymore and free agents aren't going to want to come in here and prop him up and then be left alone 2 years from now.  Will said "I know but that's ok, he deserves it for all the good things he has done for the Lakers".  I thought to myself "that's the most ridiculous explanation for overpaying someone I've ever heard but it's his team and if he's happy with it...".

I don't blame Kobe for taking the money.  We say bad things about players because they make so much money and then act like jerks but, you know what, the difference between $25M/year (which is what Kobe's making now) and $20M (which is approximately a max contract) is $5M.  I wouldn't leave $5M on the table, would you?  Steve Nash can't play anymore but I can't blame him for not hanging in one more year for $9M.  $9M is $9M is $9M.

Being a Celtic-centric fan, I prefer to look at this, rather, as a testament to KG.  He took a BIG pay cut to be with the Celtics, and is now playing for $10M/year (a steal for the impact he still has) so that we could sign some players to surround him with.  Forget about Kobe, he did exactly what I would have done and that's take the ridiculous money that was offered, but how about KG putting team ahead of self?  Paul Pierce is a Celtic, no doubt about that, but that selfless team-oriented act by #5 made him a poster boy for "The Celtic Way".

No wonder KG embraced Bill Russell on the court after winning the championship.  They have some similar personality traits.



bob



.

Can't blame Kobe or anyone else for taking the money. I actually respected his answer when asked about taking a discount. I don't have the exact quote, but its something along the lines of "these owners are richer than God, if somebody has to make a little less money, why can't it be them?". To extrapolate, these owners will continue to make money long after the player in question retires, whereas that player will never have the same earning power again. If anything, it is their duty to get as much as they can in order to secure the well-being of future generations of their families.

I'd have a bitch of a time making due with 20 mill a year too when I could get 25 Mill.

beat

Red's role as executive was started at a time when loyalty meant something, and it was underscored by the lack of free agency.  Moreover, players knew when to quit.  Most had already planned on a second career, and the lion's share of them wouldn't be sacrificing much (if any) money in the transition.  Moreover, Red wasn't constrained by the salary cap.

Obviously, things changed after the Tyranny Years—moneywise and in terms of the increasingly restrictive regulations on player transactions.  But one thing that I don't think changed in Red's mind was loyalty.  It was simply the basis on which he did business.  And that loyalty toward older players was reinforced by the fact that his bathtub full of rings had been forged very largely by veterans who played together for so long that their chemistry could outweigh physical advantages of pretenders.  And they almost never had serious injuries despite the amazing tempo at which they consistently played.

By the latter part of the 80s, Red must have been very conflicted.  He hadn't had the experience of having two mainstays like Larry and Kevin break down in their primes.  He hadn't had the experience of drafting a possible franchise player who would die without ever playing for the Celtics.  Yeah, there was Reggie Lewis, who would undoubtedly give the Celtics a dozen years of great play.  (NOT!)

But, if Red was known for anything, it was standing behind his beliefs.  He had always lived and died (actually he only lives) with the old guys, and he continued to do so.  The thought of Larry and Keven possibly lighting it up for another team was unthinkable—at least for Red.

There's also the more pragmatic question of what he could have gotten for either of them.  They might have represented a slew of season ticket sales for lower-echelon teams would might be willing to give the moon for them.  But they just couldn't produce any longer as they had earlier in their careers.  Moreover, teams were extremely, extremely reluctant to deal with Red for obvious reasons.

So I, along with many other Celtics fans, was happy to see those two finish with Celtics, even if it made them vulnerable to another death such as Reggie's.  And it was only after both of them were gone that Red was sanguine about letting Parish go.  I liked the fact that Red stuck to his guns.

My only unhappiness with Red's decision-making came when he traded away Danny for two journeymen big guys, although they were desperate for big guys at the time.  I wanted to see Danny finish his career with Boston, and I still believe his number should be in the rafters.  (Probably that will never happen—at least not while the mean old guy named Danny Ainge is running the team.)  But at least that move bore testimony to the fact that Red was capable of entering the new world of NBA realities as far as player transactions were concerned.

I realize this thread is not on the subject of Red, but mention of him stimulated these thoughts.  Okay, Lakers.  I mentioned them (and rather boldly).  Now no one can say I was off-topic.

Sam

When someone is beset with

Most of us would take the money.  But there are some guys with a sense of when enough is enough.

Larry Bird was one of them.  I read that when Bird went to Dave Gavitt  to tell him he was retiring Gavitt told him to maybe think about it for about another week. Gavitt of course knew that there was a provision in Bird's contract that if he was still on the team's roaster another week he'd get 2 million bucks.  It was no secret that Bird was going to retire even before Bird's official announcement. Gavitt was offering to give Bird the money. Two million bucks for doing nothing

Bird replied that he knew the date, that he also knew that he could no longer play and that if he couldn't earn the money he didn't want it.

sam wrote:Red's role as executive was started at a time when loyalty meant something, and it was underscored by the lack of free agency.  Moreover, players knew when to quit.  Most had already planned on a second career, and the lion's share of them wouldn't be sacrificing much (if any) money in the transition.  Moreover, Red wasn't constrained by the salary cap.

Obviously, things changed after the Tyranny Years—moneywise and in terms of the increasingly restrictive regulations on player transactions.  But one thing that I don't think changed in Red's mind was loyalty.  It was simply the basis on which he did business.  And that loyalty toward older players was reinforced by the fact that his bathtub full of rings had been forged very largely by veterans who played together for so long that their chemistry could outweigh physical advantages of pretenders.  And they almost never had serious injuries despite the amazing tempo at which they consistently played.

By the latter part of the 80s, Red must have been very conflicted.  He hadn't had the experience of having two mainstays like Larry and Kevin break down in their primes.  He hadn't had the experience of drafting a possible franchise player who would die without ever playing for the Celtics.  Yeah, there was Reggie Lewis, who would undoubtedly give the Celtics a dozen years of great play.  (NOT!)

But, if Red was known for anything, it was standing behind his beliefs.  He had always lived and died (actually he only lives) with the old guys, and he continued to do so.  The thought of Larry and Keven possibly lighting it up for another team was unthinkable—at least for Red.

There's also the more pragmatic question of what he could have gotten for either of them.  They might have represented a slew of season ticket sales for lower-echelon teams would might be willing to give the moon for them.  But they just couldn't produce any longer as they had earlier in their careers.  Moreover, teams were extremely, extremely reluctant to deal with Red for obvious reasons.

So I, along with many other Celtics fans, was happy to see those two finish with Celtics, even if it made them vulnerable to another death such as Reggie's.  And it was only after both of them were gone that Red was sanguine about letting Parish go.  I liked the fact that Red stuck to his guns.

My only unhappiness with Red's decision-making came when he traded away Danny for two journeymen big guys, although they were desperate for big guys at the time.  I wanted to see Danny finish his career with Boston, and I still believe his number should be in the rafters.  (Probably that will never happen—at least not while the mean old guy named Danny Ainge is running the team.)  But at least that move bore testimony to the fact that Red was capable of entering the new world of NBA realities as far as player transactions were concerned.

I realize this thread is not on the subject of Red, but mention of him stimulated these thoughts.  Okay, Lakers.  I mentioned them (and rather boldly).  Now no one can say I was off-topic.

Sam

When someone is beset with

sam,

He also traded away 1981 Finals MVP and 8-year Celtic Cedric Maxwell. One story I've heard Max tell, more than once, is how Red told Max (after Max had retired) about how he (Red) "forgave Max" and Max thought "you forgive me?! You traded me, I didn't leave voluntarily!".

He traded Paul Westphal, after 3 seasons and winning a championship in Boston, to Phoenix.


Red's loyalty was to the franchise, to the players and to winning, probably in that order.



bob



.

We need to balance the "taking the money" against the backdrop of who we are speaking about.  Kobe Bryant has earned about 280 million dollars in his career in SALARY ALONE.  Before you factor in endorsements and other payments.  I am sure he could have 25 kids and they would not spend all that money...so the taking care of his family line is an utter joke.

Now that is up to him - if you can demand that kind of salary, then you are entitled to it - but it shows what kind of person KoME is.

Contrast Kobe's extension with Tim Duncan's last contract. In July 2012, Duncan re-signed with the Spurs, the only team he's ever known, for three years and $30M, at the age of 36. Bryant's deal, worth $48M for two seasons, will also take effect when he is 36. Duncan has five rings and two league MVP awards. Bryant has five rings and one MVP award. What's the difference? About $14M per year, and a whole lot of ego.

I could not care less.....watching the Lakers send out a team full of has beens and D Leaguers is fine with me.  But anyone who loves the Lakers that tells you they are happy with the position Kobe has been the team in, is simply not being truthful.

MrKleen,

I know I won't sway your opinion, but I'll offer my rebuttal to your points anyway.

You use the word "demand" regarding Kobe's salary, but I don't think that's appropriate because he didn't make any demands. The contract he signed was the opening offer that the Lakers put on the table. The Lakers chose to offer that contract to him, and Kobe didn't make any demands.

You compare Kobe's contract to Tim Duncan and say that Kobe should have voluntarily taken much less, but does that same criticism apply to all 55 players making more than Tim Duncan? Is Chris Paul a "me" player because he sucks up $20 million in cap space despite having made millions in his career and millions more in endorsement income? Should every veteran player who has made over X dollars during his career willingly take a cut because he supposedly doesn't need the money and should give the team more cap space? What if Kobe taking only $10 million had resulted in the same roster for the Lakers -- would Kobe just be a sucker for letting his pay cut line the Buss kids' pockets with $13 million more?

As for how much money is enough, the average person cannot even conceive of the money that NBA players make, but there are ways to look at it differently than "greedy Kobe taking all the money he can get." First off, take the $280 million in salary and subtract taxes, agent fees, and all the other costs that the average person never has to consider. A guy like Kobe has an army of people to pay for -- marketing, legal, security, financial, nutrition, etc., etc. Of course he still has millions when all is said and done, but it's not $280 million. I agree that he has more than enough to take care of his family, but he may have other ideas for the wealth he accumulates, such as becoming a part-owner someday, like Jordan or Magic. Maybe he wants to do some business ventures. I don't begrudge him that.

The Lakers started the summer with only $34 million in salary -- Kobe, Nash, and Robert Sacre. That left a big chunk of cap space available, enough to sign a max player or multiple second-tier free agents. Things just didn't go their way for a big acquisition. They had to settle for Jeremy Lin, Carlos Boozer, Ed Davis, drafting Julius Randle, and re-signing Jordan Hill, Nick Young, and a couple of other guys. With the position the Lakers were in, I don't see how Kobe taking $10 million instead of $23 million makes any difference. It will take a while to get back to being a contender, and Kobe's contract isn't the reason why they won't contend this year.

The paragons of virtue Tim Duncan and KG taking less so that their team could spend more on other players applied to teams that were contenders and could stay that way. San Antonio in particular could use the salary break that Duncan gave them because they're a small market team that doesn't have the revenue to go beyond the salary cap. The Lakers have a regional TV deal that averages $150 million to $200 million each year for the next 20 years. They can make nothing from direct NBA income and still make a huge profit. They are raking in money. The NBA's new TV deal will triple the national TV money spread across the teams. Why is it that Kobe is the one guy who should take less when everyone else involved is making enough money to fill swimming pools with cash?

Good points Outside.
I hope people don't think KG really went out of his way in his career to help his team financially.
His 6 year/$126m extension during the 97-98 season tied up Minnesota's abilities to sign other stars and that contract was a main reason why the owners locked out the players in 1999. He was making upwards of $28m/season with that contract.
Then KG signed another $100m contract.
Then when he was traded to Boston he received a 3 year $53.1m extension.
Then KG signed for another 3 years at $36m. How much of a discount did he give them? He is a shell of the player he used to be.
In order for KG to accept the trade to Brooklyn, he demanded that Brooklyn fully guarantee this years salary at $12m. He had only a $6m guarantee before the trade. KG knows Prokhorov has tons of cash, so KG was opportunistic and made Brooklyn guarantee him the rest of his contract.

There are definitely valid points in this article.
I do think after the Dwight mess, Kobe does turn some superstars away.
You take the good with the bad with Kobe.
He has made the Lakers a fortune and still does.
Kobe accepted a pay DECREASE of over $7m this season.
If Kobe played hardball and said no decrease, I am sure the Lakers would have agreed.
It would be a stupid business decision to let him walk away.

Outside wrote:You use the word "demand" regarding Kobe's salary, but I don't think that's appropriate because he didn't make any demands. The contract he signed was the opening offer that the Lakers put on the table. The Lakers chose to offer that contract to him, and Kobe didn't make any demands.

So are you suggesting that the Lakers negotiations with Kobe consisted on them making one offer, which he accepted? There was never any discussion that him taking less would be beneficial to the flexibility of the team and allowing them to surround him with better players? Please.

Outside wrote:You compare Kobe's contract to Tim Duncan and say that Kobe should have voluntarily taken much less, but does that same criticism apply to all 55 players making more than Tim Duncan? Is Chris Paul a "me" player because he sucks up $20 million in cap space despite having made millions in his career and millions more in endorsement income?

Chris Paul and most of those other "55" are in the PRIME of their careers.....not 35 year olds on the downside. Apples and Oranges

Outside wrote:What if Kobe taking only $10 million had resulted in the same roster for the Lakers -- would Kobe just be a sucker for letting his pay cut line the Buss kids' pockets with $13 million more?

If after all these years, Kobe doesnt trust the Lakers and vice versa - I dont know what to tell you. I know one thing, Duncan took less than market value because he wanted to give his team the flexibility to go out and get better players around him. How did that work out?

Outside wrote:Why is it that Kobe is the one guy who should take less when everyone else involved is making enough money to fill swimming pools with cash?

Kobe Bryant is the highest paid player in the NBA for the 2014-15 season. But yeah, the Lakers didnt overpay for him. LOL.

Don't blame the players for taking the money, in my opinion.

Plus, as TJ said, Kobe helps make money for the Lakers. Sure, money is being tied up in the cap, but the new TV deal is going to boost the cap anyway.



KJ

k_j_88 wrote:Don't blame the players for taking the money, in my opinion.

If you look at players taking max contracts as A
And players taking less than market value to make more room for building a team of good players around them as B
B wins every time.

Duncan and Parker took less - won.
Lebron and Bosh took less - won x2
Dirk took less - won

I dont blame Kobe - but I also dont see how Lakers fans could think it is was a good deal. Kobe, healthy or not - isnt even a Top 10 player any longer. This is a life time achievement award that will set the Lakers back 5 years in their rebuild.

mrkleen09 wrote:

k_j_88 wrote:Don't blame the players for taking the money, in my opinion.

If you look at players taking max contracts as A
And players taking less than market value to make more room for building a team of good players around them as B
B wins every time.

Duncan and Parker took less - won.
Lebron and Bosh took less - won x2
Dirk took less - won

I dont blame Kobe - but I also dont see how Lakers fans could think it is was a good deal.  Kobe, healthy or not - isnt even a Top 10 player any longer.  This is a life time achievement award that will set the Lakers back 5 years in their rebuild.  

The cap is going up. For 2014-15, it's $63M. It's going to increase by roughly 44% ($28M) as a result of the new deal that includes TNT and ESPN. This mitigates a lot of the burden of the deal.

LA missed out on the CP3 deal thanks to the league, which was the initial setback point for the rebuild. Signing D'Antoni after firing Brown was the nail in the coffin. Hell, Kobe may as well get paid for the 5 rings and countless revenue he helped bring to that organization.



KJ

So no credit due to Duncan or Lebron for accepting less to win multiple championships?    Just gloss right over it.  OK

mrkleen09 wrote:So no credit due to Duncan or Lebron for accepting less to win multiple championships?    Just gloss right over it.  OK

Who says I don't think they deserve credit? I didn't mention them because they weren't directly relevant to the specific point I was making.


KJ

Duncan already had a team around him when he took less.
LeBron and Bosh took less when they had a championship team.
When Kobe re-signed, old Steve Nash and Robert Sacre were signed.
Would LA have been a championship contender if Kobe took $17m instead of $23.5m, down from making over $30m the year before?

I think Kobe's point is that if someone has to take a little less for a championship, then why is that burden always put on the players. It is not only the stars who take discounts - think of all the quality veteran "ring chasers" who take less-than-market-value deals for a chance at a ring. Thanks to incompetent player union leaders and general lack of business acumen among players in general, owners just railroaded players into a collective bargaining agreement that greatly favors the owners. Is it unreasonable to ask that these already ridiculously rich owners sacrifice their profits a little bit? I don't know, but I think Kobe felt particularly justified asking the question because he (justifiably) felt he played a large part in his owners recent 24 billion dollar TV deal. What is an extra 10 million compared to 24 billion? Answer: ~0.04%, less than half-a-percent...

Guys like Duncan are admirable, but part of me thinks he is being hosed. As a fan, of course I love it, but its not my money...